Exactly.. You made my point... Do you want Europe making our decisions or would you rather steer the ship.. Still has nothing to do with arrogance...

 

My example has nothing to do with Europe making decisions for the US. Of the two wars with Iraq, one was far more successful and legitimate than the other. Perhaps if the US hadn't hastily ignored the advice of most of the world and reflected on it with sober judgment before dissenting the disaster of the second war would have been avoided. Again, in neither example did Europe or any country make decisions for the US.

 

And you've yet to provide evidence supporting any of the claims you've been making.

^ And your example provides no evidence that America is arrogant and derisive.. and you still haven't answered the question of who should decide our policies for us... I guess you want a group of foreign countries deciding for us...:laugh:

We need a strong apologist for this country. Not someone to apologize for the United States.

We need a strong apologist for this country. Not someone to apologize for the United States.

 

Can you explain? I don't know what the bolded means.

An apologist is a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. The Apology of Socrates was a record of Socrates' speech in his own defense at trial. Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis are Christian apologists. Richard Dawkins was an apologist for Darwinism. And so on.

What is wrong with standing up and saying your going to defend yourself so you may help others? That is comparable to what I told my son when he entered high school. There would be times he would have to ignore what his friends were doing and do what was in his own best interests. He was going to need the tools to make his way in life, no one else was going to do it for him. By being a good citizen he would be supporting himself and in the long run helping those who needed some help, because they had made some bad decisions or had some misfortune of some type. Just sub the US for him and countries of the world for his friends. Someone has to be strong and make the right decisions, no matter how unpopular they are.

 

While he was not a perfect student, he has done OK. 8 years in the Marines, married to a wonderful lady and working on an engineering degree.

So, no one (or no country) should have the right to be non-committal? You have to be FOR or AGAINST everything?

 

In the war on terror, yes.

In the war on terror, yes.

 

I'm not sure I understand that.

 

Can't you just say, "We will stand with you when you are right. We will disagree with you when we think you are wrong."? :confused:

I'm not sure I understand that.

 

Can't you just say, "We will stand with you when you are right. We will disagree with you when we think you are wrong."? :confused:

 

:thumb: Not to mention the subjectivity of the "war on terror."

Exactly.. You made my point... Do you want Europe making our decisions or would you rather steer the ship.. Still has nothing to do with arrogance...

 

 

There is arrogance in the just that thought. America wants to steer the ship, but wants to be exempt from being guided herself. "We" feel we have the right to tell the rest of the world what they ought and ought not do, what policy to support, what form of government is appropriate, what human rights policies are to be maintained. But, when guilty of human rights violations (torture of suspects) or dealing with foreign policy, we feel we are somehow justified in ignoring the "world view". We tell other nations to adhere to UN policies, yet eschew the same policies for ourselves. That is arrogance. We, as Americans, are ALL guilty of it. We've decided OUR was is THE way, and seek to ensure all adhere, even if by force.

In the war on terror, yes.

 

Any nation, in any war, should have the right to NOT choose sides. What their reasons are are up to them. But a country should have the right to enter or not enter into armed conflict without fear of reprisal.

I'm an arrogant Northern Kentuckian, an arrogant Kentuckian, an Arrogant American, and generally ok with it. So call me arrogant, big deal, doesn't mean I have to care, or take offense to it.

Any nation, in any war, should have the right to NOT choose sides. What their reasons are are up to them. But a country should have the right to enter or not enter into armed conflict without fear of reprisal.

 

Sure. Machiavelli said it is best to side though, that by not siding it means both parties involved in the conflict would hate you for not having the guts to take a side. While I don't think Iraqi's expected the French's support, it's quite obvious that they didn't improve their relations with the US by not taking a side.

Sure. Machiavelli said it is best to side though, that by not siding it means both parties involved in the conflict would hate you for not having the guts to take a side. While I don't think Iraqi's expected the French's support, it's quite obvious that they didn't improve their relations with the US by not taking a side.

 

It's often most difficult to remain neutral. It's really difficult to stay out of a conflict and not choose a side, especially when the "big guy" is pressuring you. I don't think it's a case of "guts". Wanting to remain neutral most often has nothing to do with courage.

It's often most difficult to remain neutral. It's really difficult to stay out of a conflict and not choose a side, especially when the "big guy" is pressuring you. I don't think it's a case of "guts". Wanting to remain neutral most often has nothing to do with courage.

 

Hey these are his words(losely) quoted, but I tend to agree with them.